R v Quinn [2002] NSWCCA 508
The overall effective non-parole period of five years was excessive compared to the six-year sentence. A four-year non-parole period was appropriate, and specific adjustment to Count 7 was required to implement this result in line with sentencing principles and special circumstances.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal on Severity of Sentence; Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'severity of Sentence' 'totality' 'assistance to Authorities' 'non Parole Period']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal on Severity of Sentence; Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the overall effective non-parole period imposed was excessive relative to the sentence' 'Whether assistance to authorities in another state should be taken into account in sentencing' 'Application of totality and Pearce principles in combined sentencing for offences across states']
Ratio Decidendi
The overall effective non-parole period of five years was excessive compared to the six-year sentence. A four-year non-parole period was appropriate, and specific adjustment to Count 7 was required to implement this result in line with sentencing principles and special circumstances.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Application for leave to appeal on severity of sentence granted' 'Appeal allowed' 'Set aside the sentence imposed for the offence under Count 7' 'Resentence the applicant for the offence under Count 7 as follows: The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years commencing on 1 July 2002 with a...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment